There's an easy answer to this question. (No, I haven't read the article yet... just voicing out to the title question)
Yes, it conflicts with state law.
Is it an illegal law? No, it is a state law in its own right, thus is beholden under preemption.
Does this create confusion about the law, as there are two laws that say two different things? Yes, this is what State Preemption was supposed to prevent, but unfortunately, it has not done so in this case.